Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I think I would do whatever it took to balance the judgement in your favor, if you really Believe not swearing on the Bible might cause you a
problem.

I believe there is the chance (no matter how small) of a situation where not choosing the religious oath could prdjudice a magistrates subjective
opinion on my character and validity as a witness.

I don't see how swearing on one can hurt you, and if it helps your case, go for it.

I agree, I would not suffer any harm, but a not-guilty verdict in this case would create a risk of future harm to the victim of the defendant.
If I'm forced to declare my views in open court about religion prior to testifying, then I am drawn towards pretending to share the same belief as
any potential religiously zealous magistrates who may be on the bench during the case.

The forced choice should not exist in my opinion. Religious faith is irrelevant to truth and it is unfortunate that witnesses are forced to make
beliefs public before giving evidence.

Religious faith is irrelevant to truth and it is unfortunate that witnesses are forced to make beliefs public before giving evidence.

I understand, think of it as a personal act of integrity, just a formality.

"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘"You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’" But I say to
you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city
of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your
‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one (Matt. 5:33-37).

Religious faith is irrelevant to truth and it is unfortunate that witnesses are forced to make beliefs public before giving evidence.

I understand, think of it as a personal act of integrity, just a formality.

"Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘"You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.’" But I say to
you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city
of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your
‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one (Matt. 5:33-37).

Although I do not believe in the words of the Bible as anything more than a work of fiction, I do concede that the sentiment of 'yes' be 'yes' and
your 'no,' 'no' is wholly sensible and would avoid any prejudicial subjective opinions being made when witnesses are forced to reveal religious
views.
A simple change to the law could provide a non-religious declaration of truth for all required to give testimony in court. This would certainly give
more credence to the idea of an unbiased judicial system.

I think at one time the taking of an oath gripped people with the fear of divine retribution if they lied.

Not so much today.

I would imagine in the days of little scientific understanding and mass indoctrination by established churches there were many people who feared the
wrath of God. The change probably developed gradually as people realised there was no evidence of any divine punishment resulted from lying on oath,
but plenty of evidence to show the benefits of a not-guilty verdict in a criminal court.

Another reason perhaps demonstrating the outdated nature of a religiously loaded promise to tell the truth.

Why allow the belief system of another to affect the out come of a decision

which will have possible serious consequences on some one else's life.

Magistrates are just people

And as a previous poster has demonstrated

Zealots of any kind can not be trusted to be rational.

It does appear that until more of our society is comfortable with people who do not believe in any gods, it is sensible to err on the side of caution
if the situation is serious enough.
If I were serving on a jury I would 'affirm' but the smallest risk of a religious zealot being one of the magistrates draws me towards pretending to
believe in the (established) Church of
England's version of a god.

I've been searching hard for any statistics on the numbers of witnesses who affirm instead of taking the religious oath. So far nothing, but it would
be interesting to see the figures, then compare them to the ratio of jury members and defendants who take the oath, cross referenced with the last
census figures on people with no faith.

For example, 32% of my own UK home nation (Wales) declared no religious beliefs in the 2011
census.
It would be very interesting to see the proportion of witnesses who chose to affirm instead of taking the oath in Welsh courts. I would imagine less
than 32%.

Sorry for the late reply, this is not intended as a 'bump' just more of a follow up post to provide a conclusion to the issues in the OP.

The violent criminal who I would have testified against has chosen to plead guilty so I am no longer required to present my evidence in the criminal
court.
I am of mixed feelings about this because I know the guy has only gone for a pre-hearing guilty plea as under British justice this will result in a
reduced punishment. I am pleased to be in the situation where I do not have to choose to take the religious oath on a bible or the non-religious
affirmation to tell the truth though.

In the 2 months since I've last posted here I can honestly say that I had still not decided if I was going to be truthful and choose the affirmation,
or deceptive and take the religious oath to avoid potential discrimination in the event of the magistrates being hard-core Christians who might have
their opinions clouded by thoughts of my lack of faith.

I will say though, I am still passionately of the mind that in modern day UK it is a scandal that anyone giving evidence is forced to reveal this
single aspect of their character in advance of testimony, by being forced to choose a religious or non religious promise to tell the truth in open
court.
What is wrong with a simple promise?

The sooner religion and coercion to declare faith (or lack thereof) is removed from the UK justice system, the sooner we will have a more fair and
transparent system for all, defendants and witnesses alike.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.